Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I had an opportunity to shoot with the 24f3.8 for a day and a bit in Louisville, Kentucky last fall. Leica USA lent me one - and I shot 5 rolls of Acros 100 with it. Extremely good, very sharp, virtually impossible to make it flare too. It is so good wide open that you really do not gain anything, except depth of field, by stopping it down (and with a 24 you have plenty of that at f3.8). If you go to our Flickr site and type in "Leica Elmar 24mm f3.8" there should be some sample shots with the lens.
Peter Klein
Well-known
One factor I haven't heard mentioned yet is whether you shoot wide open or not. If you stop most normal and short teles down a couple of stops, things get pretty equal pretty fast. But for us available light hounds, a more expensive lens may make a significant difference. Even then, the better CV lenses can be just fine. Example: The 50/1.5 Nokton has some advantages over the pre-asph Summilux.
Nothing resolves wide open like the 35/1.4 ASPH Summilux. But the CV 35/1.2 is a fine lens, sharp enough wide open, and it doesn't have the harsh bokeh that many fast ASPH lenses have.
Another consideration is how the lens "draws," as Sean Reid says. I just love the look of the DR / Rigid 50 Summicron. Other lenses are objectively "better" in contrast or resolution, but I just like how the DR takes pictures. So I use it fairly often.
I think Roger is right about the quality plateau. Above that plateau, you can make valid lens choices based on many things, like aesthetics, price, handling, weight or even (ahem) brand cachet.
--Peter
Nothing resolves wide open like the 35/1.4 ASPH Summilux. But the CV 35/1.2 is a fine lens, sharp enough wide open, and it doesn't have the harsh bokeh that many fast ASPH lenses have.
Another consideration is how the lens "draws," as Sean Reid says. I just love the look of the DR / Rigid 50 Summicron. Other lenses are objectively "better" in contrast or resolution, but I just like how the DR takes pictures. So I use it fairly often.
I think Roger is right about the quality plateau. Above that plateau, you can make valid lens choices based on many things, like aesthetics, price, handling, weight or even (ahem) brand cachet.
--Peter
cwatgo1970
Member
Greetings Peter, I'm with you 100% regarding the DR Summicron. It's almost a lens for every need and it indeed lures a little soul into many images. Wide open it''s resolution still marvels me. I've read where some respected lens enthusiast have hailed it to be perhaps the sharpest lens Leitz had ever made.
Last edited:
Turtle
Veteran
Roger,
In terms of flare resistance of uncoated filters, the same is true of sunglasses. I have found a dramatic increase in contrast and flare resistance using quality sunglasses. Thats a single lens between the world and your eye. I guess if the first thing the light hits is an uncoated lens then the battle is already lost no matter how well coated the lenses behind the filter are. I agree, controlled testing would be neccessary, but whereas I am not convinced there would be significant resolution issues (as long as the filter is half decent) I would be amazed if there are no differences in flare control.
Its interesting that the title of this is 'cheaping out', when teh real issue is quality. There are some things that are good quality and not too expensive. I found it very interesting that Sean Reids testing showed how incredibly good the CV 35 2.5 is. As good as anything out there pretty well in outright resolution, contrast, focus shift (etc) terms. At $300 it is 5 x cheaper than a new summarit. The pancake version (optically the same) is also half the size. Is this cheaping out? I think not. I bought into Leica for the bodies, not the glass, because nobody produces a body like the M, not really, but lenses are much closer in real terms. I will say now I am not a 'wide open everything' shooter, but much more of a middle aperture man with a bit of wide open thrown in once in a while. That means I can buy lenses at a 1/4 of the price and still get the result I need. The qualtiy differential is very different wide open know. once again it is about application.
In terms of flare resistance of uncoated filters, the same is true of sunglasses. I have found a dramatic increase in contrast and flare resistance using quality sunglasses. Thats a single lens between the world and your eye. I guess if the first thing the light hits is an uncoated lens then the battle is already lost no matter how well coated the lenses behind the filter are. I agree, controlled testing would be neccessary, but whereas I am not convinced there would be significant resolution issues (as long as the filter is half decent) I would be amazed if there are no differences in flare control.
Its interesting that the title of this is 'cheaping out', when teh real issue is quality. There are some things that are good quality and not too expensive. I found it very interesting that Sean Reids testing showed how incredibly good the CV 35 2.5 is. As good as anything out there pretty well in outright resolution, contrast, focus shift (etc) terms. At $300 it is 5 x cheaper than a new summarit. The pancake version (optically the same) is also half the size. Is this cheaping out? I think not. I bought into Leica for the bodies, not the glass, because nobody produces a body like the M, not really, but lenses are much closer in real terms. I will say now I am not a 'wide open everything' shooter, but much more of a middle aperture man with a bit of wide open thrown in once in a while. That means I can buy lenses at a 1/4 of the price and still get the result I need. The qualtiy differential is very different wide open know. once again it is about application.
cwatgo1970
Member
I think I was 'cheaping out' on a lens when I bought a Holganon 60mm (camera body included with the lens $14.99) set up. The results have been disastrous!
Last edited:
Al Kaplan
Veteran
WOW, it's been a long time since I last saw a Dobro. I'm jealous!
amateriat
We're all light!
I think I was 'cheaping out' on a lens when I bought a Holganon 60mm (camera body included with the lens $14.99) set up. The results have been disastrous!
I do hope you wrote that with tongue planted slightly-in-cheek; Technically, they're "okay." Otherwise, they're great, especially the first one!
- Barrett
cwatgo1970
Member
Al, I bet the young kid wishes it was his as well, but it belonged to his old man who had loaned it to him for the photo shoot. I've heard it often when a kids father will claim their "boy, can really sing!" I have to say this one really did sound amazingly good...with and without the Dobro.
Barrett, I would tell you that I had my "toung planted in cheek" if I wasn't such a pathetic nail biter while sitting at the computer, but I thank you. It's occured to me however that I may have stepped out of bounds a bit by posting images taken with a (non-RF) Holga in the Leitz/Leica (RF) forum section. I was thinking earlier of a way that I perhaps could help my 'Holga' better blend within the "Leica" and "Rangefinder" category and this was the best I could come up with.
Barrett, I would tell you that I had my "toung planted in cheek" if I wasn't such a pathetic nail biter while sitting at the computer, but I thank you. It's occured to me however that I may have stepped out of bounds a bit by posting images taken with a (non-RF) Holga in the Leitz/Leica (RF) forum section. I was thinking earlier of a way that I perhaps could help my 'Holga' better blend within the "Leica" and "Rangefinder" category and this was the best I could come up with.
Last edited:
amateriat
We're all light!
Hey, that is a unique rig. Just be careful whipping that thing up to your eye! 
- Barrett
- Barrett
jk251
Member
I know that what is being photographed, and less about how. But I love Leica more than any other.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
i've just decided to go for an r3a instead of an old M3. Same price approximately. To use it with 50 and 90 mm lenses.
Why?
Higher mag vf (ok, not by much) with non-bottom loading and a ttl light meter. And a shutter that is not 55 years old.
And i have to have a bessa experience.
I'm keeping my m2, though!
Why?
Higher mag vf (ok, not by much) with non-bottom loading and a ttl light meter. And a shutter that is not 55 years old.
And i have to have a bessa experience.
I'm keeping my m2, though!
raid
Dad Photographer
In the end, it is about anyone's skills to capture good images on film. I don't dwell on resolution charts or "opinions" of some people unless supported by results and backed by many others. Inexpensive optics may be sufficient.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Raid has got it. Sometimes the poorest lens are the ones you pull out for a portrait or an imtimate scene, but probably not a landscape. But I did do that recently:
taken with a Hollywood Reflex.
taken with a Hollywood Reflex.
cwatgo1970
Member
What a magnificent tree Carter! That's a fairly old and retro-30's camera you had taken out for a spin.
Last edited:
kubilai
Established
landscape & prortait
landscape & prortait
A landscape is a variety of portrait. In some point of view.
landscape & prortait
A landscape is a variety of portrait. In some point of view.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I think it is 1948, it is a bugger to use but I like the results way better than a Holga (which would be its main competition).
Last edited:
cwatgo1970
Member
I would imagine a pin-hole coffee can might out perform a Holga if pressed. The Holga certainly couldn't capture the fine 'veinous' details of the tree at the distance as did your classic Hollywood. I was using the Holga shots in hopes of generating more mood in favor of a "consensus" that good images can be achieved with less expensive glass (or plastic ) optics. In reference to the Holga, I find it good for specific, near range, photo applications. I feel I can achieve somewhat of a modernistic tin-type effect (or should I say..a look) without all the added hassels of wet plate chemistry. I don't think I could achieve the same (apperciated) weaknesses in image quality with use of my Summicron, Summaron, Elmar, and Hexanon lenses.
Last edited: